Monday, September 20, 2004

Model of prophetic authority

What good are prophets if they're not infallible? This is a question I have been asked many times, and a variant of this question has come up on Times & Seasons.

Nate has challenged John H.: “The trick is to come up with some theory that doesn’t reduce the prophets to well meaning old men; some theory that still concedes to them some meaningful special access to the divine.” And his definition of “meaningful special access” of prophetic authority has these three points: “(1) we are given substantive counsel; (2) that we should follow; (3) that differs from our own substantive views.”

It seems to me that such a model is actually quite simple, though I'm not sure “special access to the divine” is quite the right phrase. I'd like to lay out some groundwork underlying my model, then propose my model of prophetic authority.

The prophets are the only ones who can receive revelation for the whole Church. While (as in an example given in the comments on the T&S thread) Church members can receive exactly the same revelations, their revelations are not for the Church as a whole. Perhaps we can call this “revelatory scope.” This is strongly emphasized by the Brethren, and, as far as I can tell, it is the only difference between revelations of prophets, seers, and revelators and the general membership of the Church. Many prophets (especially President Hinckley) have taught that they receive revelation in the same way the rest of us do, and that even the rarer, more unusual manifestations are available to every one of us as we are prepared to receive them.

This brings up the question of preparation. It seems to me that we tend to describe the men called as prophets, seers, and revelators as especially righteous. While it is likely generally the case that these men are very righteous, I'm not sure that we can say that they are necessarily the most prepared of anyone in the Church to receive revelation. There may very well be many other people in the Church who are better prepared to receive revelation, but may not have the other qualities that led to the calling of the Brethren to their positions. But it does seem that, for the most part, the Brethren must have a minimum of preparation to receive divine guidance for their duties. Someone unprepared to receive revelation is not a likely candidate for such a high position of responsibility. (That said, it seems probable that some of them may struggle with this more than others. For example, see some of the accounts of Heber J. Grant's call to become a stake president and, later, an apostle.)

From the foregoing, then, it seems that we have a couple of items: 1. The revelatory scope of prophets, seers, and revelators is greater than that of the general membership. 2. Prophets, seers, and revelators are generally very righteous men, who qualify to receive revelation. This does not make them infallible, however. In fact, they have specifically denied any claim of infallibility.

A third item (in connection with revelatory scope) is that the pronouncements of unified prophets, seers, and revelators can be binding on the Church. Whether something is binding on the Church is not the same thing as whether it is correct, however. A binding pronouncement is one that, if violated, results in consequences such as loss of a temple recommend or excommunication from the Church. For example: the Word of Wisdom (including a prohibition on wine) is binding on the Church, even though the Lord drank wine and has stated his intention to do so again with his prophets. The rule is binding on the Church, even if it may not be correct in all its particulars.

I recognize that my example above is one of practice, rather than doctrine. However, the decanonization of the Lectures on Faith seems to indicate that the same principle applies to doctrinally binding statements. The Lectures on Faith, as part of the Doctrine & Covenants, were doctrinally binding on the Church, as are all the standard works. And our acknowledgment of possible errors in the Bible and the Book of Mormon does not prevent those from being doctrinally binding on the Church.

Given this groundwork, I would propose the following model of prophetic authority:

Sometimes the prophets receive true revelation that I should follow that differs from my substantive views: I am not infallible. And sometimes I receive true revelation that leads me to differ with the substantive views of the prophets: they are not infallible.

Messy, huh? Yes, but the order comes in the authority: in what is applicable to and binding on the Church as a whole. What this means, unfortunately, is that sometimes we have to make hard decisions: are we confident enough in our own revelation (and is it substantive enough) to continue to differ with the prophets, seers, and revelators, or do we defer to their authority because we value order? We are just as fallible as they are.

What good are prophets if they're not infallible? I would reply with similar questions: What good are teachers if they're not infallible? What good is peer review in the academic world if it is not infallible? What good are the scriptures if they're not infallible? Here's the good: They challenge us; they teach us; they remind us; they prompt us to seek further, not to be satisfied with where we are; they prod us Godward.

And they do this for the community as a whole, which is a value in itself. Mormonism is strongly focused on community. We are not, despite the high value we place on agency, a religion that is all about our individual relationship with God. Mormonism is a religion that is all about our communal relationship with God and each other. That is why questions are raised about the "Mormonness" of someone who questions the prophets -- because we place a very high emphasis on community.

The trick, as Nate might put it, is in finding the balance between the community and the individual, between prophetic authority and personal revelation, between continuity of doctrine and continuing revelation.

13 comments:

  1. Grasshopper: Nate here. First, I want to be clear that I didn't mean to imply that I regard prophets as infallible or that I think infallibility is a necessary component of an adequate theory of authority.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Like Nate, I want to point out that in all of my comments on the topic over at T&S, I never argued for the infallibility of prophets, although judging from the counter-arguments of people who responded to my views, it seems that that is how I came across.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And sometimes I receive true revelation that leads me to differ with the substantive views of the prophets: they are not infallible.This is the part of your model that doesn't seem to make sense to me. It is not that I think that prophets are infallible, but it is more a question of why would God do that? Reveal something to the prophet and then reveal something to you that "leads [you] to differ with the substantive views of the prophets." Perhaps you mean this in the sense of opinions. For example, a prophet likes cherry trees more than apple trees (his personal opinion, in which he is truly fallible, because everyone knows that apple trees are better). You receive a revelation that apple trees are better indeed, so that differs substantively from the prophet's view, but it is true revelation to you.

    That doesn't seem to work on the doctrinal level, though. For example, I know a bishop who was very frustrated during his first few years as a bishop because one woman in his ward would come to him and claim that even though it is the established law of the restored Gospel, revealed to the prophets, that tithing is to be 10% of income, she has had a revelation that for her, tithing is to be only 5% of her income. What in your model would preclude the validity of this woman's absurd claim? Wouldn't your theory actually support her in this claim? (I don't know if she is making this claim still--she moved out of the ward she was in and now lives elsewhere, so perhaps her current bishop is still dealing with these "revelations" that she is getting that differ substantively from what the prophet teaches).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nate and John, I didn't mean to suggest that either of you believes in prophetic infallibility. But I think Nate's challenge is a variant of the kind of question I have gotten in the past about prophetic infallibility, so I couched my post here in those terms.

    John, I don't intend to suggest that God would reveal one thing to the prophets and something opposed to an individual member of the Church. That's not to say that I couldn't imagine such a thing; for example, God could reveal to the prophets a general principle that grain should be a staple food for human beings, but reveal to an allergic individual that grain should not be a staple food for them.

    What I mean when I say that prophets are not infallible is that they can be wrong about whether God has revealed to them what they think he has. They may believe that God has revealed something to them, when he hasn't. (For example, see Bruce R. McConkie's statement after the 1978 revelation on the priesthood.) Or they may misunderstand the revelation. (For example, see Joseph Smith's initial misunderstanding of the revelation about him seeing the Savior if he lived to be 85 years old.)

    And this kind of fallibility applies to doctrinal matters as well as practical ones. Sometimes the prophets are wrong. And, as J. Reuben Clark pointed out so well in his famous talk, When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?, we can only know when they are right and when they are wrong when God tells us. And we can be wrong about that, too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Regarding the woman wanting to pay 5% the Bishop can obviously give the rejoinder that the Lord through his prophets has told him to deny her a temple recommend if she pays only 5%. If she claims revelation for a different outcome he need only say that she doesn't have the right to such a revelation as she doesn't hold the keys.

    It is my experience that those claiming personal revelation for odd things are typically unwilling to accept the consequences for acting on the belief.

    I think all leaders are fallible, but that doesn't mean they somehow don't have the keys of authority to make the decisions they do. Occasionally they'll make a mistake, but the authority remains unless someone higher up removes that authority.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Someone unprepared to receive revelation is not a likely candidate for such a high position of responsibility.I know that you're describing a different model, but I'd like to hear more about the basis for positing this assumption. What if the qualities of operating effectively within an organization tend to occur more predominantly in conjunction with a tendency to view (and feel) the status quo as better than something that upsets the status quo? What is preparation to receive revelation?

    From the foregoing, then, it seems that we have a couple of items: 1. The revelatory scope of prophets, seers, and revelators is greater than that of the general membership. 2. Prophets, seers, and revelators are generally very righteous men, who qualify to receive revelation. This does not make them infallible, however. In fact, they have specifically denied any claim of infallibility.Again, I'd be interested in your thoughts about the effects of relative degrees of "righteousness" may be. What are the relative differences between one individual who is more righteous than the individual's neighbor? Is there a basis for concluding that righteousness is more prevalent among general authorities of the Church than among the laity? What is it about righteousness that "qualifies" one for revelation? How does such a qualification process work?

    A third item (in connection with revelatory scope) is that the pronouncements of unified prophets, seers, and revelators can be binding on the Church.This is the one point I can agree with. The Church's basic position is you either agree to act as if certain pronouncements by Church leaders are as binding on you as pronouncements by God, or you don't. If you don't, then under certain circumstances, you may not hold a temple recommend. And depending on how you conduct yourself in respect of those beliefs, you may be excommunicated, as well.

    What good are prophets if they're not infallible? I would reply with similar questions: What good are teachers if they're not infallible? What good is peer review in the academic world if it is not infallible? What good are the scriptures if they're not infallible? Here's the good: They challenge us; they teach us; they remind us; they prompt us to seek further, not to be satisfied with where we are; they prod us Godward.Do you understand their prodding to be Godward because they are pointing you in the right direction? I'd understood your posting to suggest that they might not, in a particular instance. If one does presume that they're prodding Godward, doesn't that also presume that they're right? Or are you generally suggesting that prodding of any kind can direct one Godward, rather like a hair shirt?

    Though even to my own ear I'm sounding rather dour in these remarks, I'll hazard another observation:

    The trick, as Nate might put it, is in finding the balance between the community and the individual, between prophetic authority and personal revelation, between continuity of doctrine and continuing revelation.Under your model, if the leaders are fallible and one were to conclude via personal revelation that they were wrong in a particular, shouldn't one follow the personal revelation, without regard to the belief or practice established by the leaders for the community at large? That doesn't seem to me to be a balancing act at all -- just the tension between individual belief and desire to remain within a particular community.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I worded the prior post badly. The point I noted agreement with was not at all the only point I agreed with in the post -- just the only point I was noting my agreement with.

    (and English is my mother tongue)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Clark wrote:

    I think all leaders are fallible, but that doesn't mean they somehow don't have the keys of authority to make the decisions they do. Occasionally they'll make a mistake, but the authority remains unless someone higher up removes that authority.This is an important distinction that I hoped to bring out in my post. Authority and correctness are separate issues.

    ReplyDelete
  9. greenfrog, as usual, you ask some excellent questions. I'll try to address them in the comments below.

    Grasshopper: Someone unprepared to receive revelation is not a likely candidate for such a high position of responsibility. 

    greenfrog: I know that you're describing a different model, but I'd like to hear more about the basis for positing this assumption. What if the qualities of operating effectively within an organization tend to occur more predominantly in conjunction with a tendency to view (and feel) the status quo as better than something that upsets the status quo? 

    I don't think this affects the model significantly unless we assume that revelation primarily functions to "upset" the status quo (depending on what we mean by that). I'm not sure that's the case. For example, I try to receive revelation to help me fulfill my church calling better. If I receive inspiration to do things a certain way, while it may technically "upset" the status quo in the sense of leading me in a different direction, in the overall scheme of things, it doesn't upset the status quo at all.

    What is preparation to receive revelation? 

    This is an excellent question; probably one that deserves its own post. My short answer would be that, at a minimum, it would include faith and humility and a desire to find and follow God's will.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Again, I'd be interested in your thoughts about the effects of relative degrees of "righteousness" may be. What are the relative differences between one individual who is more righteous than the individual's neighbor? 

    I think it has to do with whether they are seeking, and trying to follow, God's will.

    Is there a basis for concluding that righteousness is more prevalent among general authorities of the Church than among the laity? 

    Depends on what group of laity you're talking about.

    What is it about righteousness that "qualifies" one for revelation? 

    I think it puts us in a frame of mind where we are more receptive to the Spirit of God, and more willing to act on spiritual promptings. In addition, I think that God gives more to those who are willing to receive more, which I think is part of "righteousness".

    How does such a qualification process work? 

    I think that God relies on his experience with us to determine what he is willing to reveal to us. If we have been receptive and willing in the past, he is more likely to reveal further things to us.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Grasshopper: Here's the good: They challenge us; they teach us; they remind us; they prompt us to seek further, not to be satisfied with where we are; they prod us Godward. 

    greenfrog: Do you understand their prodding to be Godward because they are pointing you in the right direction? I'd understood your posting to suggest that they might not, in a particular instance. If one does presume that they're prodding Godward, doesn't that also presume that they're right? Or are you generally suggesting that prodding of any kind can direct one Godward, rather like a hair shirt? 

    It's a combination. I think most of their prodding is pointing in the right direction. But by "right direction", I don't necessarily mean that everything they say is right; rather, I mean that they often direct us to seek answers from God for ourselves.

    As an (oversimplified) analogy: Let's suppose that you want to know how to learn a particular skill. I may give you some pointers from my own experience to point you in the right direction, but I can also point you in the right direction by telling you to go ask someone who is far more capable of teaching you than I am, or directing you to helpful resources that you can explore for yourself.

    I also definitely intend the element of prodding that comes from challenge. When I am challenged by a scripture or a prophetic statement, it prods me to try to resolve apparent conflicts. I do so by studying, pondering, and approaching God. In this sense, even incorrect teachings can prod us Godward, in the sense that they drive us to seek God in "proving contraries", to use the words of the famous quote by Joseph Smith.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Under your model, if the leaders are fallible and one were to conclude via personal revelation that they were wrong in a particular, shouldn't one follow the personal revelation, without regard to the belief or practice established by the leaders for the community at large? That doesn't seem to me to be a balancing act at all -- just the tension between individual belief and desire to remain within a particular community. 

    I don't think so, for two reasons. The first has to do with the importance of the thing in question.

    For example, suppose I receive a revelation that drinking beer is not a violation of the Word of Wisdom (it's included among the "mild drinks" made from barley). Does it necessarily follow that I should drink beer? I don't think it does. For me, drinking beer is not an important enough issue to violate the rules of the Church, with the accompanying consequences, such as the denial of a temple recommend.

    The second, which is far more important, is that I am fallible, too, even when I believe I have received revelation. This is where the balancing comes in. I have to be willing to take a really close look at my own life, the process by which I come to my conclusions, the context of my experiences, etc., etc. -- it really is a matter of balance.

    Now, I would agree that ultimately, after I have made all these efforts, I must rely on my own experiences, decisions, and desires. So, if you were speaking of this point, I would agree with you. But even after all this, I should be willing to re-evaluate my choices.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In my personal Quran study with my Muslim friend we recently discussed Islamic perspectives of prophets. Muslims are very aware that the Hebrew Bible describes Lot as committing incest and King David committing adultery and murder. Muslims get pretty upset with this and feel that is horrible blasphemy to impugn these two "prophets."

    The whole infallibility issue makes me nervous. Whether we're talking about prophets (dead or alive) or scriptures or anything that is deemed sacred. I think that unless we're talking about God the Father, Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, we should keep a strict separation between the infallible and the sacred.

    Danithew
    http://www.wump.info/wumpblog

    ReplyDelete